At least among the omnivores in my family, my seitan "carne" asada is a massive hit.

It's wheat gluten powder hydrated with brown veggie & mushroom broth, with cumin, chili powder, and a dash of soy sauce. Baked. Then diced and browned in corn oil with minced onion, a little more soy sauce, and a hint of molasses. Serve with freshly made corn tortillas and pico de gallo or tomatillo-aguacate salsa.

The point isn't to compare one specific product to one specific product; you compare a holistic diet with a holistic diet. If I got 50%+ of my protein from seitan sausage, cautioning against processed foods might be relevant, but nobody actually eats that way. (Also, what harm does physically processing foods in machines actually do? Adding salt in the factory and running it through an extruder is no worse than adding salt at home.)

What percent of the chicken an omnivore eats is organic? Do people who say "I only eat organic chicken and beef from my uncle's special farm" never eat at restaurants or friends' houses? Never buy TV dinners? Omnivores seem to enjoy comparing the best theoretical meat-based diet with the worst theoretical plant-based diet, regardless of how people actually eat.

You kicked off this thread with "Gluten is still not considered perfectly safe if as well you read the literature," and are now not providing links to the literature that you told me to read. I'm asking for evidence that gluten is "not safe."

Feeding a chicken a diet of processed corn product and antibiotics: Not processed, totally natural. Mushing a bunch of plants together in a tube shape: Disgustingly processed, inherently unhealthy.

Plant sausage is a bit salty, so it's a good thing no vegan sits around just eating fake sausage.

Other than soy, no one plant protein has all 9 amino acids that the body needs from food. That's why the first rule of a vegan diet is "get protein from multiple sources."

Please share these primary sources that demonstrate the points you're trying to make about a plant-based diet being unhealthy.

If you have a high protein goal for the sake of getting jacked, you're going to need a specialized diet anyway, regardless of whether you eat meat. Body builders aren't going to TGI Fridays and eating pizza like a regular American omnivore.

Are you saying the vegan obesity rate is the same as the omnivore obesity rate?

Of the 20+ vegans I know, the ones that are overweight or scrawny were already that way before they turned vegan. The rest of us are energetic, fit, and have plenty of muscle tone. I feel like if I were unhealthy, a doctor would have said something to me about it some time over the last 25 years (especially during pregnancy).

I'm not sure how much protein you think a person needs to eat every day to maintain a healthy (non body builder) muscle weight. But the number of vegan body builders demonstrates you can get ripped on plants if you put your mind to it.

It can if that's a thing your body does! If that's how your body reacts to gluten you shouldn't eat too much. But if your body doesn't have that reaction, there's no problem. You might as well tell everyone to avoid strawberries because some people are allergic to strawberries.

Please share the medical journal sources that explain why it's not perfectly safe. I've been eating lots of seitan over the last 25 years and, while I feel great, I may be racing to an early grave and not realize it! My health depends on your insights!

Also eager to learn why, contrary to every reputable nutritionist's input, I can't actually get high quality and complete protein through a diverse diet containing beans, legumes, grains, and vegetables. Must be a wild conspiracy in the medical community.

Yeah that's why there's all those fat vegans running around.

This graph is about cheap protein, not dense protein. Look up wheat gluten (22 g protein per 100 calories) or even soy curls (lower at 10 g per 100 calories, but still 40% from protein). The vegan hot dogs in my fridge have more protein per calorie than chicken.

Look at the graph again. CO2 (thick black line) is rising from the start of the graph.

320 ppm is used because that was the concentration in 1965 when scientists began reporting on this phenomenon more formally.

Please look at this visual: https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/styles/resource_image/http/data.globalchange.gov/assets/22/05/f91f3e0f9de762a469592dc44804/CS_global_temp_and_co2_1880-2012_V3.png?itok=_eLJDZSz

Yes, but that only accounts for a tiny amount of the actual warming observed. It usually takes thousands of tens of thousands of years to experience the rate of warming we've seen in the last century.

Because the falling tile can chip the counter top. Also it's annoying to mix up a tiny batch of thinset, grout, and applying grout sealer twenty different times over the next few years will be a massive PITA. Just get it done right once now.

Which month is the "right" month definitely changes by culture, but the premise that being the oldest in your childhood cohort confers an early advantage seems to hold across multiple countries.

If it makes you feel any better, the magnitude of the advantage conferred isn't huge. I'm a September baby, was almost always the youngest in my class, and (at the risk of bragging) I'm objectively successful. I was never great at sports, but being several inches below average is probably the culprit. :)

>surely this can't still be giving intentionally-held-back kids an edge once they are older?

That's the weird thing: It does. Being the oldest/tallest/strongest/smartest kid in your cohort means coaches give you more game time, or you gain more academic confidence and skill among your peers in early grades. And it snowballs from there.

In my neck of the woods (California) the cutoff is September 1, but it used to be December 31. You had a lot of kids going halfway through Kindergarten as 4-year-olds. Now those Sept-Dec babies go to "transitional kindergarten" first.

Come to think of it, I don't remember providing a copy of the birth certificate when I enrolled my kid in kindergarten. I think most American parents are so eager to get their kids out of the house and into free childcare (er, I mean school) that the deception would be more likely to go the other way (pretending your kid is older than they really are).

Yes, according to my co-workers from India. They're pretty upfront about it, too (and pretty upfront about being in arranged marriages).

In India, reporting the wrong birth month to the school is super common (or it used to be), from parents trying to optimize their kids' chance of academic success.

At my polling place in Alameda County, you select the separate ballot in your chosen language. Voting materials have all languages printed on the same materials.

Anyone claiming cultural diversity is unamerican is a bona fide dummy.